CHAN SZE YUEN 對 TIN WO ENGINEERING CO LTD AND OTHERS

CACV 50/2016

香港特別行政區

高等法院上訴法庭

民事上訴案件2016年第50號

（原本案件編號：高等法院傷亡訴訟2008年第427號）

________________________

________________________

判案書

上訴法庭副庭長林文瀚頒發上訴法庭判案書：

1.  上訴人為高等法院原訟庭案件HCPI 427/2008的原告人。他自1974年起為地盤紮鐵工人，在2005年6月24日受僱於第二被告人在澳門氹仔威尼斯人酒店建築地盤工作時發生意外受傷。案發時他52歲。意外中，他從約2米的高處墮下，令他右足的腳跟受傷。

2.  在2008年，原告人入稟高等法院，追討疏忽賠償。案件的進度並不理想，原告人於2011年7月20日同意撤銷向第一被告人的申索。在2015年1月14日原告人與第三被告人以港幣850,000元和解，並同意擱置向第三被告人的申索。至於第二被告人，自2012起已沒有積極參與案件，在2015年1月20日聆案官余敏奇基於第二被告人沒有遵從法庭2013年10月2日的「除非」命令，判決第二被告人敗訴，賠償金額由聆案官釐定。但因第二被告人為澳門公司，案發地盤也在澳門，沒有有效的保險保障。因此第四被告人在2015年10月29日基於它潛在承擔賠償責任申請加入訴訟。法庭在2015年11月10日批准第四被告人加入成為訴訟一方。

3.  賠償金額的釐定，經2015年12月15日審訊後，在2016年2月5日高等法院聆案官梁國安裁定原告人應得的賠償為港幣378,252.70元，在扣除僱主預支港幣90,968.00元; 僱員補償港幣185,301.20元及第三被告人支付的港幣850,000元後，判決第二被告人無須再額外賠償原告人。他並且判決原告人支付第四被告人的訟費。

4.  在原訟法庭的訴訟(包括賠償金額的審訊)，原告人是由法律援助署委派的律師及大律師代表。

5.  梁聆案官賠償金額的釐定如下：

	港幣($)
痛苦、苦楚及失去生活情趣(PSLA)	250,000.00
審前收入損失	116,192.50
將來收入損失	0
工作能力的損失	0
特別損害賠償	12,060.20
	___________________
總計：	378,252.70

6.  聆案官裁定原告人沒有將來收入損失及工作能力的損失主要基於他就原告止任職紮鐵工人之原因的事了實裁斷。在意外後，原告人在2005年10月曾回到澳門地盤做紮鐵工作(當時他的病假還未終止)。在2006年11月16日，他在賭場玩樂時不適，回港後自行到屯門醫院急症室診治，發覺是因動脉瘤破裂引致腦出血，須入院治理。2007年6月出院後，他沒有再做紮鐵, 也沒有找其他的替代工作。

7.  根據審訊時唯一的神經科專家余毓靈醫生2009年10月22日的報告，2006年原告人腦出血中風與2005年6月意外的傷勢無關。余醫生認為原告人的腦出血是先天的隱疾，不是由2005年6月意外的傷勢引發。原告人沒有任何醫學專家證據提出不同意見。在原審時，代表原告人的大律師也同意腦出血與意外無關，見審訊錄音謄本p.58N至R。

8.  聆案官2016年2月5日判決書就原告人停止任職紮鐵工人之原因分析如下：

“ 27. Mr Chan continued to work until the stroke incident on 16 November 2006. He was admitted on 19 November 2006 received various neurosurgical procedures. He was discharged in late December 2006 and had sick leave until 29 June 2007, but he has not returned to work again.

28. Mr Chan told the court that there was a labour shortage in Macau and he was urged to return to work after the foot injury incident. He was able to have his work practice modified (to some extent): he took a more supervisory role due to his experience and problem-solving ability, he did not need to personally work on the heavier (bigger gauge) steel bars, and he was taking pain-killers etc.

29. Mr Chan also stated in his witness statement (as I translate) that initially he was told that his work would only be “supervisory” and “would not be laborious”, but “in reality, I had to do steel-binding. Because I was injured and had an operation, it was very laborious. But I need to work for a living so have to bear it.”

30. In the same statement, Mr Chan also maintained that he understood Dr Yu’s opinion that: “from a neurosurgical point of view, I was suitable for laborious work.”

31. He further stated that: “In other words, my inability to return to steel-binding work is entirely due to my foot injury and unrelated to the bleeding in the brain.”

32. However, I am not convinced by this line of argument.

33. When questioned by Ms Leong, he told the court how pressurized the job was and how the supervisor would check the progress of the work and would fire those who could not finish the job on time.

34. The fact remained that Mr Chan had managed to continue to work for more than 1 year until the stroke incident.

35. This could only happen if Mr Chan’s work capacity as a steel-binder was higher than he alleged, or that his employer was far more accommodating and sympathetic than he alleged, or both.

36. More importantly, Mr Chan admitted that, after recovery from the stroke incident (by June 2007), he had not attempted to look for a steel-binding job. In fact, there was no evidence to suggest that he attempted to look for any job at all (including those “alternative” jobs that Dr Chiang and Dr Tsoi opined that he was able to do).

37. If Mr Chan really thought that: -

(a) he “needed to work for living” and had to “bear” with steel-binding before the stroke incident;

(b) he was not “physically” affected by the stroke incident (in other words, his medical condition was the same as when he was working as a steel-binder between October 2005 and November 2006);

(c) but he did not return to steel-binding after June 2007 because he felt not up to standard and might endangered others as a steel-binder etc;

Mr Chan did not provide any explanation (and I see no convincing argument) as to why he should not at least try to look for a lighter job after his recovery from the stroke incident.”

9.  因此聆案官認定縱使沒有2005年6月的意外引致的傷勢，原告人也會在2006年11月退休，停止任職紮鐵工人。

“ 39. The inevitable conclusion must be that Mr Chan has decided to retire from work and for whatever reasons, it could not be due to his (unchanged) physical condition. It would not matter to the court what the real reasons were but one might perhaps speculate from the timing that his concern (despite the reassurance from Dr Yu) about the stroke incident was one of the reasons.

40. In other words, I find that even without the foot injury incident, Mr Chan would have likely stopped working on 16 November 2006.”

10.  原告人不服聆案官就賠償金額的判決，向上訴庭提出上訴。他在上訴中沒有律師代表，但他以中文簽署的上訴通知書明顯是律師以英文代他草擬的。上訴通知書提出的上訴理由如下：

“ 1． The learned Master’s finding in paragraph 40 of the Judgment that “even without the foot injury incident, Mr. Chan would likely stopped working on 16^th November 2006” was not supported by evidence whatsoever and is therefore an unjustified finding.

2． Further the learned Master was wrong in law in that he mixed up a failure to mitigate issue with a causation issue.

3． There was a failure on the part of the learned Master to consider material undisputed evidence of the Appellant (Plaintiff) about the difficulties he suffered while working between the time shortly after the accident on 16^th November 2006 and the change in market situation.

4． The learned Master was wrong in law to allow the 4^th Respondent (4^th Defendant) to put forward a non-pleaded case (i.e. that the stoke constituted norus actus interveniens) and decided on the basis of such a case (see the 4^th Defendant’s Answer to Revised Statement of damages and paragraph 31(b) of the Plaintiff’s Closing Submission).

5． The Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or supplement these Grounds when the transcript of the trial is available.”

11.  原告人沒有按法庭指示存檔他的上訴陳詞綱要。在上訴聆訊中，他確認他的上訴通知書及理由是由原審時代表他的藍大律師草擬，他曾希望藍大律師可以在上訴中代表他，但因他沒有法援，不能付擔律師費，祇能自己進行上訴。他採纳藍大律師草擬的上訴理由為他在上訴中的陳詞。

12.  代表第四被告人的梁嘉儀大律師在2016年12月28日存檔了她的上訴陳詞綱要。

13.  本庭必須強調：在上訴中上訴庭主要是考慮原審法官的判決是否犯了錯誤。上訴庭只會按照上訴人所提出的上訴論據來考慮這個議題。原告人在本上訴的理據均圍繞聆案官裁定原告人沒有將來收入損失及工作能力的損失。如上文解釋，這些裁定乃基於聆案官就原告人停止任職紮鐵工人之真正原因的事實裁決。

14.  就事實的裁斷，上訴人須向上訴庭清楚指出原審法官在衡量或理解證據或證供明顯犯錯：Ting Kwok Keung v Tam Dick Yuen (2002) 5 HKCFAR 336; China Gold Finance Ltd v CIL Holdings Ltd CACV 11/2015, 27 November 2015。在人身傷亡案件賠償金額的判決，這原則同樣適用於原審法官就原告人不返回原本工作崗位的原因之判決：Yeung Cheung Chun v Wing Shing Caisson & Foundation Ltd CACV 39/2015, 25 April 2016。

15.  本庭不認為梁聆案官忽畧了原告人自己作供時就他重返工作所遇到的困難及市場改變的證供。在原審的盤問過程中，代表第四被告人的大律師有挑戰這些證供，聆案官必須衡量是否接纳原告人的說法。梁聆案官在2016年2月5日判決書第27段開始討論原告人這方面的證供及解釋為何他不信納原告人。上訴通知書内的上訴理由(3) 並不成立。

16.  本庭並且認為梁聆案官在聽取原告人的證供及考慮到下列的證據，有權作出衡量不信納原告人的説法，沒有明顯錯誤，本庭不應推翻：

(1) 原告人確實自2005年10月開始回復紮鐵工人的工作, 並沒有間斷地工作至2006年11月；

(2) 原告人的說法有自相矛盾之處: 他一方面說他自己能力不足應付紮鐵工作，另一方面又作供指僱主雖嚴格監察他工作效率亦繼續僱用他；

(3) 雖然蔣醫生持不同意見，蔡醫生認為原告人可回復原本的工作；

(4) 蔣醫生及蔡醫生均認為原告人可繼續做較輕巧的工作；

(5) 他2006年的腦出血治好後，雖然他明白與工作無關，但他仍沒有尋找工作；

(6) 在2007年6月，他經已年屆54歲；

(7) 就2007年6月後不尋找任何工作，他沒有可信的解釋。

17.  所以上訴通知書内的上訴理由(1)也不成立。

18.  至於原告人不回復工作在法律上應被界定為「切斷因果關係」(novus actus breaking the chain of causation) 或是原告人沒有履行減低損失的責任(failure to mitigate) ，本庭不認為聆案官在這方面犯了錯誤。從2016年2月5日判決書第25及39段來看，聆案官是從「切斷因果關係」的角度考慮這課題。聆案官與大律師在審訉中的討論也支持這分析：見審訊錄音謄本p.51至63，特別是p.59E至Q。在追討賠償時，原告人須證明他的損失，因此在人身傷亡案件中若原告人不能證明他失去收入是因意外的傷勢引致，他這方面的追索不能成功：在Hung Sau Fung v Lai Ping Wai [2016] 1 HKLRD 106，上訴庭同意Bharwaney J 原審的判決，被告人不須原告人因具個性採納病者角色而不回復工作引致的收入損失, 原因見該判詞[69] 段,

「 There is no demonstrable causation between the accident and the resulting injury and the plaintiff’s adoption of a sick role, which was the cause of his not working …」

19.  雖然在Hung Sau Fung案中，法庭就將來收入損失有給予賠償，但該案的原告人在案發時衹有29歲，法官接纳他的傷勢確實對他工作能力有影響，而採納病者角色並非不可逆轉的情況。這與本案中原告人在2007年決定退休之情形不同，至今他經已年屆63歲，不可能逆轉退休的狀況。

20.  因此，上訴通知書内的上訴理由(2)並不成立。

21.  在原審時，代表原告人的大律師也曾提出與上訴理由(4)相若的論據，但不被梁聆案官接納。在第四被告人對原告人損失陳述書的回應中，第四被告人經已表明它的立場是意外後原告人可回復本來的工作崗位。原告人事實上亦於2005年10月回復紮鐵工人的工作至2006年11月。雖然原告人爭議他該段時間的工作不等同他實際的工作能力，但是他必須肩負這方面的舉證責任。梁聆案官不接納他的證供，表示他未能證明他提出的論點的舉證，聆案官針對他退休的裁決也是在這些在他席前經已提出的爭議點引申出來的判決，法律及程序上沒有錯誤。

22.  本庭認為上訴通知書内的上訴理由(4)也不成立。

23.  本庭頒令判駁回原告人的上訴，並頒令原告人須支付第四被告人本上訴的訟費，訟費由訟費聆案官釐定。